I like how he paradoxically attacks one scientist claiming that he should make predictions that are actually observed, then pulls a full 180 and attacks ocean acidification which was not only predicted but is now being actively observed and confirmed. He may as well have just stuck his fingers in his ears and said "Nya nya nya nya" during the Q & A.

He is quite obviously in someone's pocket, whose best interest is the status quo of environmental destruction. Sounds like our Canadian Government trying to justify the tarsands. Smoke and mirrors, thinly veiled.

I like how he paradoxically attacks one scientist claiming that he should make predictions that are actually observed, then pulls a full 180 and attacks ocean acidification which was not only predicted but is now being actively observed and confirmed. He may as well have just stuck his fingers in his ears and said "Nya nya nya nya" during the Q & A.

It's worse than that, because the Muller paperdoes actually test a prediction about the correlation of CO2 and temperature.

Quote:

In the simple linear combination, the anthropogenic factor, log (CO2), has a weight equivalent to an effective response of 3.1 ± 0.3°C at doubled CO2 (95% confidence). However, this parameterization is based on an extremely simple linear combination, using only CO2 and no other anthropogenic factors and considering only land temperature changes. As such, we don’t believe it can be used as an explicit constraint on climate sensitivity other than to acknowledge that the rate of warming we observe is broadly consistent with the IPCC estimates of 2-4.5°C warming (for land plus oceans) at doubled CO2. The purpose of the anthropogenic term is merely to show that our extended temperature reconstruction is consistent with an anthropogenic explanation, and not to try and detangle the details for those changes.

Not necessarily, although he probably does make some money from the think-tank connections and speaking engagements. It's more likely that he's motivated by politics, which have colored his ability to weigh the issues appropriately. I believe this is what happens to a lot of the "skeptics," especially given how much of their words they devote to political issues whenever this comes up. It's politics first, but just happens to have lucrative potential because there is a large and wealthy vested interest in talking up denial.

The best way to make me stop listening to a skeptics argument is to bring Al Gore in the subject. Yes Al Gore is the political champion of Climate Change but if you have to go into the realm of politics to make your scientific argument then your argument must not be very sound.

More than likely his presentation works very well at all those conservative conferences he is probably paid to speak at.

I am surprised Al Gore still gets mentioned in these climate talks, considering his movie came out in 2006... I really have no idea what he has to do with anything, unless you are referencing points made in his movie.

I am surprised Al Gore still gets mentioned in these climate talks, considering his movie came out in 2006... I really have no idea what he has to do with anything, unless you are referencing points made in his movie.

They're preaching to their demographic, and it's an easy way to get Republicans on their side. "Blah blah Al Gore is fat and has a plane, therefore..."

That said, it's funny to see the Larouchites try that, even with Obama with a Hitlerstache, and still fail to get conservatives interested as soon as they start talking about how they believe that the conspiracy doesn't lie with George Soros... BUT ELIZABETH WINDSOR HERSELF.

The best way to make me stop listening to a skeptics argument is to bring Al Gore in the subject. Yes Al Gore is the political champion of Climate Change but if you have to go into the realm of politics to make your scientific argument then your argument must not be very sound.

More than likely his presentation works very well at all those conservative conferences he is probably paid to speak at.

I don't up/down vote much here but I do have a policy of automatically down-voting any post that mentions Al Gore. I had to make an exception in this case (nehalem's post). +1

Sincerely? No. Paid shills sleep soundly and securely, though. They're rarely as stupid as the people who parrot their PR for free.

I agree. I normally wouldn't bring that up, but when the guy starts of a "scientific" talk (as opposed to a comment on Ars) with "Al Gore's publishers photoshopped an image on the cover of a popular reading book, hence Global Warming is false", I can't give him any benefit of doubt.

He is quite obviously in someone's pocket, whose best interest is the status quo of environmental destruction.

i doubt it: more likely he's politically opposed to action on climate change (thus the attacks directed at Gore). incidentally, does anyone know when he became associated with the Marshall Institute? does it pre- or post-date his burblings on climate?

He is quite obviously in someone's pocket, whose best interest is the status quo of environmental destruction.

i doubt it: more likely he's politically opposed to action on climate change (thus the attacks directed at Gore). incidentally, does anyone know when he became associated with the Marshall Institute? does it pre- or post-date his burblings on climate?

Well, that's certainly a strict dichotomy there.

Thinktanks push policy for vested interests. They are driven by those "pockets" and use ideology to push their policy into our law.

I believe this is what happens to a lot of the "skeptics," especially given how much of their words they devote to political issues whenever this comes up. It's politics first, but just happens to have lucrative potential because there is a large and wealthy vested interest in talking up denial.

i doubt it: more likely he's politically opposed to action on climate change

It might not be a direct link but why would he be politically opposed to this action if he didn't stand to benefit? Someone making these types of denial claims in the face of obvious evidence invariably ends up being the beneficiary of something. We just might not find out about it.

I think it would be beneficial to have serious skeptics with valid opposing arguments in the climate change discussion. I haven't seen any yet; they all fall down to the level of dragging their politics into it. That's unfortunate, since naysayers can have an enormous impact on changing -- or further proving -- scientific theory.

i doubt it: more likely he's politically opposed to action on climate change

It might not be a direct link but why would he be politically opposed to this action if he didn't stand to benefit? Someone making these types of denial claims in the face of obvious evidence invariably ends up being the beneficiary of something. We just might not find out about it.

Exactly. Why would he be working for a thinktank to begin with if this was not the case?

So some people think it's perfectly reasonable to equate climate change skeptics with Nazi sympathizers who deny the Holocaust, but consider it egregious to bring up the man most visible in the eyes of most of the public as the popularizer of human-caused climate change? If you have that bizarre combination of double standards, you need to get emotions out of your thinking and treat people's words more rationally.

There are a lot of nuts who claim all sorts of things about this subject, but the fact that you have strong emotions about some people on the other side — whichever side you take — doesn't make it rational for you to engage in this sort of insane double standard.

i doubt it: more likely he's politically opposed to action on climate change

It might not be a direct link but why would he be politically opposed to this action if he didn't stand to benefit?

I believe most of them do this because they have weird ideas about climate change being some kind of trumped up hoax, perpetuated by The Other Side of politics to trick the world into enacting Bad Policies. This kind of thing takes up an enormous amount of the ink they spill on the subject. It's also consistent when past opposition to environmental reforms; painting activists and scientists alike with the brush of stealth Communism (hence the term "watermelon" that some are so fond of). So I don't think people like Happer are "in it for the money," at least not directly. I think they have wacky ideas about why this is being made into a big deal, and that they've let these political fears color their perception of the issue.

So some people think it's perfectly reasonable to equate climate change skeptics with Nazi sympathizers who deny the Holocaust...

The term "denier" has nothing to do with Nazi sympathies. It has to do with the pattern of denial that's integral to Holocaust denialism, HIV/AIDS denialism, and other forms of rejection of reality. There is no ulterior motive of smearing people by associating them with actual Nazis or Nazi sympathizers.

but consider it egregious to bring up the man most visible in the eyes of most of the public as the popularizer of human-caused climate change?

Attacking Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" en totale is political posturing, not scientific rebuttal. Al Gore and said documentary have nothing to do with the science of man-made climate impacts themselves and if you want to refute the science, then refute the science, don't wax political over how Al Gore's documentary is utter bunk and therefore the whole climate science thing is ridiculous. That argument sells to exactly the kind of people who want to buy it so they can say "Look, a prominent scientist says this about Al Gore's movie we don't like, climate change is a myth!"

Al Gore is not a scientist and, unlike a number of his destractors' implications, I can't recall Al Gore ever asserting that he was a scientist.

EDIT: Let's not spend too much time on the anti-climate change arguers' position that using the word "denier" means you are equating them with Holocaust deniers and therefore implying they are pro-Nazi and therefore Godwin so your argument is invalid.

but consider it egregious to bring up the man most visible in the eyes of most of the public as the popularizer of human-caused climate change?

Attacking Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" en totale is political posturing, not scientific rebuttal. Al Gore and said documentary have nothing to do with the science of man-made climate impacts themselves and if you want to refute the science, then refute the science, don't wax political over how Al Gore's documentary is utter bunk and therefore the whole climate science thing is ridiculous. That argument sells to exactly the kind of people who want to buy it so they can say "Look, a prominent scientist says this about Al Gore's movie we don't like, climate change is a myth!"

The sad part is that both sides use this crazy rhetoric. (And yes, like most people, I tend to auto-agree with anyone who talks to my preconceived notions, but I also try to self-police it.)

Can we, please, get past the automatic dismissals of anyone who disagrees with us as "morons?" I'm tired of either side preaching to the choir and writing off everyone else. More often then not, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Often, interpretation of science is tied to the philosophy of the person reading the results. They frame their questions and retrieve their answers based on the underlying assumptions and beliefs they have about the universe. That will change how they see the outcome.

Yep, global warming has occurred and will occur. Nope, man isn't the sole source; lots of factors are involved. How much impact has man had? Well, that's less clear. Even less clear is the long term impact of the industrial age.

It's possible that the lack of clarity is not a lack of good science, but due to the politicizing of the debates by people like Gore and many of the scientists.

In 500 million years of geological history, the Earth has been ice free for about 450 million. This doesn't just mean shrinkage, it means no glaciers, no sea ice, and no polar ice caps.

Looking at geological timescales, there is no strong correlation, as the man said. There are periods where the temperature was the same as now despite CO2 being at ten times higher concentration, and times where concentrations were the same as now but the Earth was nearly as warm as it's ever been. These exceptions to the rule cover periods of tens of millions of years.

CO2 concentrations have only been as low or lower than they are in modern times once, 250+ million years ago. Average CO2 and temperature are both much higher than they are today, and both are going to rise drastically no matter what we do. This ice age is already the second longest in history. We should probably spend less time on the blame game and more time getting prepared.

i doubt it: more likely he's politically opposed to action on climate change

It might not be a direct link but why would he be politically opposed to this action if he didn't stand to benefit?

maybe "ideologically opposed" would have been a better choice of words. what i'm trying to say is that he comes across more like the rank-and-file denialists you see in comment threads across the intertubes -- they hate the idea of a government-led solution to climate change, and they've not got any of their own, so clearly the problem doesn't really exist, right? but unlike them, he's got an impressive (if unrelated) set of credentials and can talk the science words, so he's much more interesting to the think-tanks who want to pretend there's a scientific controversy.

Quote:

Someone making these types of denial claims in the face of obvious evidence invariably ends up being the beneficiary of something. We just might not find out about it.

i doubt he's doing this work pro bono (if he is, he's a lot more stupid than he looks), but that doesn't mean he's doing it because he wants the money.

[edit: having just caught up with the rest of the thread, i would like to make it clear that i am not now and have never been Wheels of Confusion. apologies for any confusion caused.]